This thread is meant to chronicle the death of traditional media and hell, new media too since most of it is just as bad as the old media.

The media put their already shoddy reputations on the line and lost big. They still assumed that as the fourth estate, they had the ability to shape the majority of the minds of the voters. We saw the media outright admit that they feel it was right to do whatever it takes to make sure Trump didn't get elected, we saw the media run with a Russian connection that did not exist, we saw the media take quotes out of context to manufacture controversies, and best of all, we got to see the media deal first hand with the consequences of their actions with an increasingly hostile public, where they pretended that questioning the integrity of the journalist meant that the gas chambers were all fired up and ready to go.

So now we are going to see these old media outlets die off, depend on shady capital injections, and consolidate. While I'm sure The New York Times will exist in 2025, it won't be anything like what it is now, which is a mere shadow of what it was 10, 20, or 50 years ago.

To kick it off, the NYT has been losing subscribers since the election and they issue a shitty mea culpa in hopes to stave off the bleeding.

To our readers,When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.

After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?

As we reflect on this week’s momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.

Sincerely,Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.Publisher

Dean BaquetExecutive Editor

Having attended a few Trump rallies, NYT reporters were at every single one. So they knew all about the rallies and they knew about his support. Instead, they kikefully tried to twist and manipulate it, from not even mentioning the size of his yuge rallies to ridiculing the people who attended the rallies to just outright lying about the support he was getting. They doctored and oversampled the polls in hopes that it would depress Republican turnout and craft the narrative that it was all over for Hillary. NYT was at the forefront of this, they knew about the support he was getting, and decided to go ahead and lie anyway. Now they are losing subscribers:

Quote

Citing reader anger over election coverage, Rutenberg wrote that, “Most ominously, it came in the form of canceled subscriptions.”

You reap what you sow. You wanted to be a propaganda organ for the Democrats, you got to live with the consequences.

The only thing the media did was inflate the heads of smug liberals up to 'weather balloon that can reach the upper atmosphere" levels. The only turnout depressed was on the left. Trump drew roughly McCain levels in the popular... and 1 million less than Romney. Yet the left bled 10 million popular votes from 2008 and 5 million from 2012. There was no grand white uprising... the left just stayed home... and the minorities clearly didn't believe that memo about Trump Ovens Inc... as he held the line or showed minor gains with all minority blocks.

The only polling that has been accurate over the last five years are those that show faith in media and government was at an all time low.

Just a reminder, this is when the NYT openly admitted it was done with being impartial

Quote

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?

Covering Mr. Trump as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate is more than just a shock to the journalistic system. It threatens to throw the advantage to his news conference-averse opponent, Hillary Clinton, who should draw plenty more tough-minded coverage herself. She proved that again last week with her assertion on “Fox News Sunday” that James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had declared her to be truthful in her answers about her decision to use a private email server for official State Department business — a grossly misleading interpretation of an F.B.I. report that pointed up various falsehoods in her public explanations.

And, most broadly, it upsets balance, that idealistic form of journalism with a capital “J” we’ve been trained to always strive for.

But let’s face it: Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy. For the primaries and caucuses, the imbalance played to his advantage, captured by the killer statistic of the season: His nearly $2 billion in free media was more than six times as much as that of his closest Republican rival.

Now that he is the Republican nominee for president, the imbalance is cutting against him. Journalists and commentators are analyzing his policy pronouncements and temperament with an eye toward what it would all look like in the Oval Office — something so many of them viewed as an impossibility for so long.

You can see it from the minute the television news day starts, on the set of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC. A few months ago media writers were describing a too-cozy relationship between Mr. Trump and the show’s hosts, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski.

Yet there was Mr. Scarborough on Wednesday asking the former Central Intelligence Agency director Michael V. Hayden whether there were safeguards in place to ensure that if Mr. Trump “gets angry, he can’t launch a nuclear weapon,” given the perception that he might not be “the most stable guy.”

Then Mr. Scarborough shared an alarming conversation he said he had with a “foreign policy expert” who had given Mr. Trump a national security briefing. “Three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons,” Mr. Scarborough said, describing one of the questions as “If we have them, why can’t we use them?”

Speaking with me later, Mr. Scarborough, a Republican, said he had not contemplated sharing the anecdote with the audience until just before he did.

“When that discussion came up, I really didn’t have a choice,” Mr. Scarborough said. “That was something I thought Americans needed to know.”

Mr. Trump has denied Mr. Scarborough’s account. (He told The New York Times in March he would use nuclear weapons as “an absolutely last step.” But when the MSNBC host Chris Matthews challenged him for raising the possibility he would use them, Mr. Trump asked, “Then why are we making them?”)

Mr. Scarborough, a frequent critic of liberal media bias, said he was concerned that Mr. Trump was becoming increasingly erratic, and asked rhetorically, “How balanced do you have to be when one side is just irrational?”

Mr. Scarborough is on the opinion side of the news business. It’s much dodgier for conventional news reporters to treat this year’s political debate as one between “normal” and “abnormal,” as the Vox editor in chief Ezra Klein put it recently.

In a sense, that’s just what reporters are doing. And it’s unavoidable. Because Mr. Trump is conducting his campaign in ways we’ve not normally seen.

No living journalist has ever seen a major party nominee put financial conditions on the United States defense of NATO allies, openly fight with the family of a fallen American soldier, or entice Russia to meddle in a United States presidential election by hacking his opponent (a joke, Mr. Trump later said, that the news media failed to get). And while coded appeals to racism or nationalism aren’t new — two words: Southern strategy — overt calls to temporarily bar Muslims from entry to the United States or questioning a federal judge’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage are new.

“If you have a nominee who expresses warmth toward one of our most mischievous and menacing adversaries, a nominee who shatters all the norms about how our leaders treat families whose sons died for our country, a nominee proposing to rethink the alliances that have guided our foreign policy for 60 years, that demands coverage — copious coverage and aggressive coverage,” said Carolyn Ryan, The New York Times’s senior editor for politics. “It doesn’t mean that we won’t vigorously pursue reporting lines on Hillary Clinton — we are and we will.”

You can fairly say about Mrs. Clinton that no presidential candidate has secured a major party nomination after an F.B.I. investigation into her use of a private email server for, in some cases, top-secret national security information. That warrants scrutiny, along with her entire record. But the candidates do not produce news at the same rate.

“When controversy is being stoked, it’s our obligation to report that,” said the Washington Post managing editor Cameron Barr. “If one candidate is doing that more aggressively and consistently than the other, that is an imbalance for sure.” But, he added, “it’s not one that we create, it’s one that the candidate is creating.”

Some of it was baked into the two candidacies. Mrs. Clinton has been around so long that voters can more easily envision what her presidency would look like. And to say she hasn’t been amply scrutinized is to ignore the fact that there are more “gates” affixed to her last name — Travelgate, Whitewatergate, now Emailgate — than there are gates in the Old City of Jerusalem.

Mr. Trump is a political novice who has spent his career running a private company and starring in a hit reality show. He’s hardly an unknown, but there is so much we still don’t know about his views and his familiarity with the major issues. His positions would be big news even if they didn’t so often seem to break with decades-old policy consensus (which they do).

The media reaction to it all has been striking, what The Columbia Journalism Review called “a Murrow moment.” It’s not unusual to see news stories describe him as “erratic” without attribution to an opponent. The “fact checks” of his falsehoods continue to pile up in staggering numbers, far outpacing those of Mrs. Clinton. And, on Sunday, the CNN “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter called upon journalists and opinion makers to challenge Mr. Trump’s “dangerous” claims that the electoral system is rigged against him. Failure to do so would be unpatriotic, Mr. Stelter said.

While there are several examples of conservative media criticism of Mr. Trump this year, the candidate and his supporters are reprising longstanding accusations of liberal bias. “The media is trying to take Donald Trump out,” Rush Limbaugh declared last week.

A lot of core Trump supporters certainly view it that way. That will only serve to worsen their already dim view of the news media, which initially failed to recognize the power of their grievances, and therefore failed to recognize the seriousness of Mr. Trump’s candidacy.

This, however, is what being taken seriously looks like. As Ms. Ryan put it to me, Mr. Trump’s candidacy is “extraordinary and precedent-shattering” and “to pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous with readers.”

It would also be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.

It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

"I'm really boring. My current hobbies right now are playing Animal Crossing on the DS and... I dunno, I did a bit of knitting last night for the first time in months after boy broke up with me over the phone (I can only cast on and knit stitch though). I surf the internet like every other person in the entire fucking world. I constantly have ideas that I never follow through on. I want to be a nurse someday. I want to drive. I nearly got my licence a few years ago but blacked out at the wheel due to my (90% now-cured) anorexia and haven't driven since."

The F.B.I. reported Monday that attacks against American Muslims rose last year, driving an increase of about 7 percent in hate crimes against all victims.

The data, the most comprehensive look at threat crimes nationwide, expanded on previous findings by researchers and outside monitors, who have noted an alarming rise in some types of hate crimes tied to the intense vitriol of the presidential campaign and the aftermath of terror attacks at home and abroad since 2015.

You're going to be hearing about this for awhile. I was bored, so I took a quick look at the tables. Where do you think the majority of hate crimes are occurring, the deep south? Trump territory?

This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.

This was where I went full 'Fuck the media' mode. Nothing but nakedly pushing an agenda and manipulating stories to make what they want. I hope they all go bankrupt. And fuck Wolf Blitzer, that phony cunt.

There are so many things that are glorious are about this video. Joel Pollak destroys CNN people about Breitbart and the Alt Right. The media really doesn't get why the Alt Right and memes have been so successful.

I can't wait for when they start calling secret ballot voting sexist/racist/islamophobic/xenophobic/etc.

They want everything to work like some village in South America, where everybody knows everybody and rats on everybody else for voting the wrong way. Strong-arm bullshit like everything else leftists do.

There are so many things that are glorious are about this video. Joel Pollak destroys CNN people about Breitbart and the Alt Right. The media really doesn't get why the Alt Right and memes have been so successful.

CNN clutching their pearls over the possibility of news media acting as white house propaganda.

There are so many things that are glorious are about this video. Joel Pollak destroys CNN people about Breitbart and the Alt Right. The media really doesn't get why the Alt Right and memes have been so successful.

It's been so long since I unironically watched anything from CNN I forgot how much of a mumbling and stuttering eunuch Don Lemon still is to this very day. I really hope Breitbart goes thru with that lawsuit because literally everybody is sick of that network.

There are so many things that are glorious are about this video. Joel Pollak destroys CNN people about Breitbart and the Alt Right. The media really doesn't get why the Alt Right and memes have been so successful.

CNN clutching their pearls over the possibility of news media acting as white house propaganda.